The Interference of Interferon: Miscommunication in Science
Written on
Chapter 1: The Search for Interferon
The journey to discover interferon contrasts sharply with the serendipitous finding of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Unlike penicillin, which emerged by chance, the quest for interferon was a deliberate effort aimed at finding cancer treatments during the 1970s and 1980s.
Interferon was first identified by Alick Isaacs and Jean Lindenmann in 1957 when they noted its ability to interfere with the replication of the influenza virus. This family of proteins has long been celebrated for both its antiviral and potential anticancer effects. In the realm of notable medical discoveries, interferon was seen as a prodigy—an innovation that the scientific community hoped would lead to groundbreaking treatments.
However, despite the enthusiasm, funding organizations hesitated to back interferon research.
The Reluctance to Fund Interferon Research
There were multiple factors behind this reluctance:
- The quantity of interferon produced by living cells was extremely limited, making it expensive to generate sufficient quantities for clinical trials.
- Not all researchers were convinced of interferon's potential to cure cancer.
A Brief History of Interferon Research
In the 1960s, Dr. Ion Gresser first experimented with interferon on mice bearing tumors, noting a significant delay in tumor growth. Fast forward to 1974, when Dr. Kari Cantell treated patients with osteogenic sarcoma using interferon, resulting in an impressive 80% reduction in lung metastases—a key measure of treatment efficacy. Yet, this success was clouded by simultaneous improvements in metastasis among untreated patients.
By 1976, Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute, approved $1 million for interferon research, spurred by Dr. Mathilde Krim's advocacy. Subsequently, the American Cancer Society allocated an additional $2 million for similar research in 1978. As funding opportunities emerged, the public began to hope for a miracle drug—a cure for cancer.
The Commercialization of Hope
As interferon research progressed without major breakthroughs, genetic engineering and recombinant technology began transforming the scientific landscape. University researchers and pharmaceutical companies joined forces, focusing on the goal of genetically engineering interferon.
Inspired by the groundbreaking impact of penicillin, scientists and biotech firms competed fiercely to be the first to create genetically-engineered interferon-producing cells. However, their motives appeared less altruistic than those of Fleming, who humbly credited nature for his discovery.
Biogen and the Flawed Communication Strategy
Although Tadatsugu Taniguchi successfully cloned interferon in 1979, it was Charles Weissmann at Biogen who gained recognition for engineering the first successful human interferon. A fundamental principle of scientific discovery is transparency—researchers are expected to publish their findings for peer review before public announcements.
Contrary to this approach, Biogen opted for a press conference to proclaim their achievement, resulting in a surge in their stock value from $50 million to $100 million. This tactic also stirred hope among cancer patients and their families, who were eager to invest in treatments that had yet to demonstrate significant efficacy.
Is Genetically-Engineered Interferon Futile?
The answer is complex. While genetically-engineered interferon has proven valuable for research, particularly in the context of antiviral therapies, it has not lived up to its promise as a cancer treatment. The ongoing relevance of interferon was underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic, where its various types provided critical insights into immune responses and viral combat.
The Consequences of Irresponsible Communication
The manner in which scientific discoveries are communicated matters greatly. When Fleming introduced penicillin, he adhered to established protocols, ensuring that his work was rigorously vetted before reaching the public. Although this may have delayed widespread adoption, it fostered trust in scientific processes.
In contrast, the premature excitement surrounding interferon led to disillusionment among the public, who hoped for a miracle cure that never materialized. This disparity breeds skepticism towards science and its practices. While Fleming is celebrated, numerous other discoveries, particularly those commercialized for profit, have not enjoyed the same appreciation. The irresponsible communication surrounding scientific breakthroughs can contribute to widespread distrust, as seen during the recent pandemic.
References
Vil?ek, Sandra Panem, Jan. “Interferon and the Cure of Cancer.” The Atlantic, 1 Dec. 1982, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/12/interferon-and-the-cure-of-cancer/666776/. Accessed 10 Feb. 2023.
LONGINO, HELEN E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. JSTOR, Princeton University Press, 1990, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvx5wbfz. Accessed 10 Feb. 2023.